Israel-Gaza war

[Vosem]

No, any conclusion in which Hamas does not surrender unconditionally, and agree to implement the directives of the Israeli government, is unacceptable.

How many times post-World War II has one side agreed to surrender unconditionally? That's not how war works anymore.

How many times prior to WW2 did one side agree to surrender unconditionally

Prior to World War II, countries would declare war and hostilities would formally end with treaties. We don't declare war and we don't do lasting treaties anymore, so conflict just ebbs and rises like waves in the ocean. Was there ever a declaration of war or treaty of any kind in regards to Syria, a conflict that was not really a civil war but more a pan-Arabian Peninsula War with Saudi Arabia and Friends on one side against Iran and Friends on the other? No, the Syrians with outside help "won" and Assad remained in power, but they still only control about 2/3rds of the country.

Throw on top of all that Hamas is not a state because Palestine is not a state nor are they the governing authority de jure (Abbas is), so they cannot unconditionally surrender when Israel does not recognize the authority of their leader nor the existence of the State of Palestine. So from who and where are you receiving this hypothetical piece of paper and what gives said person the authority to give it? This is a Prussia-francs tireurs conflict. It's not like the francs tireurs ever formally surrendered to the Prussian military.

Describing Hamas as francs-tireurs is kind of odd because the Hague Conventions explicitly do not protect francs-tireurs, and at Nuremberg moderately famously no Nazis were convicted for the mistreatment of partisans, for this exact reason.

Anyway, Hamas is an organized political party, with a formalized hierarchical structure, which could absolutely surrender. (Also, the government in Gaza, which includes things like a Health Ministry, could also absolutely surrender). That particular individuals would refuse to accept this is the way of the world, but it does not invalidate the Japanese surrender that Lieutenant Onoda continued fighting somewhere, as long as he was not actively receiving commands from the Japanese government and the Japanese government was actively helpful in efforts to apprehend him.

It's honestly unreal how bad Israeli PR is. Like "hasbara" and "Israel has hypnotized the world" is kind of a BS claim because actual Israeli PR and diplomacy is completely and utterly inept now. There's legitimately a crisis of competence in these sectors of the Israeli staet.

There's a sense in which this true and then a sense in which this isn't. Like, Palestine has taken 20 years of almost unbroken good media cycles in the US, and my understanding is that in Western Europe it's been even more, since at least the late 1980s or so. But at the end of that time the degree to which Israel is viewed positively by the American public (and -- I strongly suspect though I have less evidence for this -- the Western European public) has actually increased radically.

I think it is possible for a person to be perceptive enough to notice this, but sufficiently unsympathetic to ideological or religious justifications for Western support for Israel -- or just sufficiently deluded about various "apartheid state" claims -- to perceive a contradiction and say things like 'hypnosis'.

For anyone from Israel, what do both sides want as curious how many still even want a two state solution or do most on either or maybe both sides want other removed from country? 

I get impression most Israelis for a two state solution and issue is more against right of return from Palestinian refugees created in 1948 and over exact boundaries (keep Jerusalem in Israel and exchange some Arab towns for Jewish settlements near Green Line). 

I think this was true across the 2000s but during the 2010s with increasing hostility from Hamas support for the two-state solution declined in Israel and at least during this conflict it's sunk to insane lows. My purely anecdotal view is a huge swing both within Israel and among hard-Zionists-outside-of-Israel towards support for settlements. (Which is not the same as support for settlers -- right now even among the center-right Ben-Gvir is a punching bag -- but where withdrawal actually happened in 2004, remained mainstream for most of the decade and then existed on the fringe for the next one, it now seems absent entirely in the discourse.)

https://twitter.com/HeTows/status/1723814701958615519

The solution is just more occupation, absent either a Palestinian government which can credibly claim not to have the destruction of Israel as a goal, or demographic changes happening over decades.

Like, there's been a giant swing left in polls, such that Bibi would lose the next election in a giant landslide. But that's happened at the same time as a giant swing right even by Meretz, much less Labor/Yesh Atid/National Unity. There are no Zionist parties willing to entertain the idea that the ceasefire should continue indefinitely.

[flyboy1058]

Israel new about the Hamas plans to attack Israel over a year before it happened! How could this happen? We have given the generation Israelis billions of dollars in weapons and defense Systems like the iron dome. How the hell could this happen??? The only reason is that Netanyahu allowed this to happen because he needed to put the blame on the liberals and stay in power. He knew that also there would be a Americans that would put the blame on President Biden for not giving Israel enough weapons to defend itself. Think about it. Out of the 1200 Israelis that died, how many were staunch hardliners like Netanyahu? I would say ZERO! The dead we're all in the desert celebrating Life in a rave concert. Netanyahu wants to change the Israeli constitution, so he can stay in office for Life! Just like Orange Jesus!

[IndianAmericanRepublican]

I think this is an obvious attempt to pawn Biden's failures on this issue onto Bibi

[mileslunn]

It does seem less support for a two state solution.  In case of Gaza Strip, blame is solely on Hamas as Israel disengaged and rather than using money to help their people, they use it on weapons and tunnels.

But for West Bank, that is much more problematic.  It seems have worst of possibilities as annexing it would at least give Palestinians full equal rights like Israeli Arabs have but at same time many in Israel rightly fear due to higher birth rate, Jews might become a minority in their country again.

Other is withdrawing from West Bank and dismantling all settlements but unlike Gaza or Sinai, number of settlements is many so I don't see how you could dismantle all without lots of violence.  And after Gaza attack many worry if disengage West Bank would do same.  Perhaps best solution is incorporate settlements near Green line (which is majority) into Israel while ones deeper in West Bank dismantle while in exchange give some Arab towns near Green line (most there) to Palestine and for Arabs who wish to remain Israelis they can re-locate (many due to more economic opportunities and higher standard of living prefer to be part of Israel)

Still it is unfortunate that the situation is not likely to improve anytime soon and as time passes those old enough to remember when peace seemed possible are dying off while younger generations only remember violence.  I actually think peace would be easier if birth rate falls dramatically in West Bank and number of Jews making Aliyah dramatically increases.  They could then annex and give full citizenship rights without worrying about Jews being a minority.  Most in Israel I believe even if uneasy are okay with 20% who are Arab.  Yes some want them stripped of all rights, but many do not.

[pppolitics]

we need a german style denazification process for gaza and numberburg trials for october 7th

Israel wouldn't accept the majority of its leadership being sent to death for committing war crimes.

[Open Source Intelligence]

No, any conclusion in which Hamas does not surrender unconditionally, and agree to implement the directives of the Israeli government, is unacceptable.

How many times post-World War II has one side agreed to surrender unconditionally? That's not how war works anymore.

How many times prior to WW2 did one side agree to surrender unconditionally

Prior to World War II, countries would declare war and hostilities would formally end with treaties. We don't declare war and we don't do lasting treaties anymore, so conflict just ebbs and rises like waves in the ocean. Was there ever a declaration of war or treaty of any kind in regards to Syria, a conflict that was not really a civil war but more a pan-Arabian Peninsula War with Saudi Arabia and Friends on one side against Iran and Friends on the other? No, the Syrians with outside help "won" and Assad remained in power, but they still only control about 2/3rds of the country.

Throw on top of all that Hamas is not a state because Palestine is not a state nor are they the governing authority de jure (Abbas is), so they cannot unconditionally surrender when Israel does not recognize the authority of their leader nor the existence of the State of Palestine. So from who and where are you receiving this hypothetical piece of paper and what gives said person the authority to give it? This is a Prussia-francs tireurs conflict. It's not like the francs tireurs ever formally surrendered to the Prussian military.

Describing Hamas as francs-tireurs is kind of odd because the Hague Conventions explicitly do not protect francs-tireurs.

I'm completely aware of that and is why during the Iraq War the Geneva Conventions explicitly did not protect al-Qaeda because they never openly identified themselves as members of a military or partisan force.

But since they're not a state group, they're never going to unconditionally surrender. Because if the head surrenders and then gets shot in the head by his next-in-command, that surrender agreement is not worth ten cents. So what you are really arguing for is permanent war and occupation.

[Vosem]

No, any conclusion in which Hamas does not surrender unconditionally, and agree to implement the directives of the Israeli government, is unacceptable.

How many times post-World War II has one side agreed to surrender unconditionally? That's not how war works anymore.

How many times prior to WW2 did one side agree to surrender unconditionally

Prior to World War II, countries would declare war and hostilities would formally end with treaties. We don't declare war and we don't do lasting treaties anymore, so conflict just ebbs and rises like waves in the ocean. Was there ever a declaration of war or treaty of any kind in regards to Syria, a conflict that was not really a civil war but more a pan-Arabian Peninsula War with Saudi Arabia and Friends on one side against Iran and Friends on the other? No, the Syrians with outside help "won" and Assad remained in power, but they still only control about 2/3rds of the country.

Throw on top of all that Hamas is not a state because Palestine is not a state nor are they the governing authority de jure (Abbas is), so they cannot unconditionally surrender when Israel does not recognize the authority of their leader nor the existence of the State of Palestine. So from who and where are you receiving this hypothetical piece of paper and what gives said person the authority to give it? This is a Prussia-francs tireurs conflict. It's not like the francs tireurs ever formally surrendered to the Prussian military.

Describing Hamas as francs-tireurs is kind of odd because the Hague Conventions explicitly do not protect francs-tireurs.

I'm completely aware of that and is why during the Iraq War the Geneva Conventions explicitly did not protect al-Qaeda because they never openly identified themselves as members of a military or partisan force.

But since they're not a state group, they're never going to unconditionally surrender. Because if the head surrenders and then gets shot in the head by his next-in-command, that surrender agreement is not worth ten cents. So what you are really arguing for is permanent war and occupation.

I don't see why this is true. Where is the LTTE today? If they unconditionally surrender, then at least some will put down their weapons and accept the new leadership. History teaches us this is the vast majority. If some group decides to start a new war, then hopefully they can be arrested by civil authorities. If some new group successfully starts a new war with the same goals as this one, then there will be a war until they unconditionally surrender too. No justice, no peace.

https://twitter.com/ZachG932/status/1730691257096097923

They are cowards for not intervening (never mind not speaking). But we already knew that, of course. It is plausible that MBS's success in outmaneuvering the rest of the House of Saud came purely from being the only Gulf princeling with any balls.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Interestingly, it seems that Arab governments agree with Vosem in wanting Israel to keep fighting (until Hamas unconditionally surrenders? or is destroyed).

https://www.twitter.com/ZachG932/status/1730691257096097923

Haaretz's Amos Harel reports that, behind the scenes, almost every Arab leader is urging Israel not to stop the war until Hamas is destroyed https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-30/ty-article/.premium/as-the-truce-with-hamas-progresses-decision-time-for-israel-approaches/0000018c-1ce6-da36-a1de-5fe797c20000

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

For anyone from Israel, what do both sides want as curious how many still even want a two state solution or do most on either or maybe both sides want other removed from country?  

I get impression most Israelis for a two state solution and issue is more against right of return from Palestinian refugees created in 1948 and over exact boundaries (keep Jerusalem in Israel and exchange some Arab towns for Jewish settlements near Green Line).  By contrast I get impression Hamas at least wants Israel wiped off the map.  I get some upset over Nakba in 1948 but lots of places have had demographics change and you don't usually call for expulsion.  First Nations in Canada & US aren't calling for whites to be removed even though they stole the land and unlike Jews, aren't indigenous at any point in history to Canada or US.  So just curious if any Israeli or Palestinian could answer this.  Also any chance of a solution as I don't think current situation is tenable long term.

West Bank being occupied into islands but not contiguous is totally unworkable.  Either grant it independence and remove settlements or at least any of those far from Green Line or have it annexed by Israel and give the Palestinians full equal rights like Israeli Arabs have.  I know both have tons of flaws and would not be easy, but surely either one even if disagree or strongly dislike cannot be worse than status quo.

Note regardless of my opinion on issue, I know its very complex so would be interested to hear from anyone with any greater knowledge on this.

They do not.

The people saying they want a two-state solution should pay attention to what the people in the two states actually think of the matter.

Group	Percent Supporting Two State Solution
Israeli Arabs	60%
Israeli Jews in Israel	34%
Palestinians	33%
Israeli Jews in West Bank	15%

Source: PSR-Tel Aviv University Poll, December 2022

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

This is absolutely just horrible. Actually gut-wrenching, but s good microcosm of Israel.

https://twitter.com/BenzionSanders/status/1730489255816839608?t=72-maqxxflJIOwm1...

The fact that these people are literally incapable of telling each other apart on sight must be so confusing to the American leftists who insist on framing this as a racial-imperialist conflict between White People and Indigenous People of Color.

[Hindsight was 2020]

The reports that Egypt and Jordan are secretly encouraging Israel to continue the campaign is legit black pilling like nobody in any form of power gives a sh*t for regular Palestinians and it’s heartbreaking

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think this is an obvious attempt to pawn Biden's failures on this issue onto Bibi

Possibly, but I don't think it's at all obvious. Why do you?

[GeneralMacArthur]

Indy Texas the interesting thing about your link is that support was much much higher seven years ago and people simply don't think a two-state solution is possible anymore.

Declining support linked to low perceived feasibility. To understand the division of opinion about the two-state solution, it is useful to consider the findings regarding the feasibility and implementation of a two-state solution. When asked about the chances that an independent Palestinian state will be established in the next five years, among Palestinians, only 7% view the chances as high or very high that such a state will be established in the next five years; 70% of Palestinians say the chances are low or very low.

Among Israeli Jews a large majority of 88 percent believe the chances are low or very low – this is higher than 2020 and 2018 when 78 percent and 81 percent respectively thought that. Among Israeli settlers, 89 percent believe the chances of establishing a Palestinian state are low or very low. Arab respondents in general are somewhat more optimistic, but still a large majority of 68 percent view the chances as low or very low; 20 percent give “medium” chances. Among all Israelis and all sub-populations, only 3 percent give high or very high chances to the creation of a Palestinian state over the next five years.

As in the past, respondents were asked if they believe that the two-state solution is still possible, in light of recent political developments and the settlement spread. Among Israeli Jews, the findings indicate a rise in the percentage of those who believe it is no longer feasible, from 45 percent two years ago to 53% today. However, among Arab respondents, those who believe the two-state solution is still viable remains stable, 46% today compared to 45% two years ago. As a result, the Israeli total at present has become more pessimistic: 34 percent think the solution is still viable, and 49 percent believe it is not (the remainder don’t know). In September 2020, 43% thought it was viable and the same amount thought it was not.

Of course none of the alternatives to a two-state solution seem particularly feasible either:

(A) A fully-democratic single state -- essentially absorbing Gaza and West Bank into Israel and granting all Palestinians Israeli citizenship -- would have nearly an even demographic split of Arabs and Jews, and quickly devolve into an arms race of birth rate vs. birth rate for democratic control of the country -- a race the Arabs have been handily winning for the last few decades.  Regardless of whether you think the Jews have a right to an ethnostate or whether they are justified in being afraid of what life might bring under majority-Arab rule (it doesn't necessarily have to become outcome C, although that is what many Palestinian groups have openly promised), it should be plainly obvious that they are never going to willingly submit themselves to this.

(B) Incorporating Gaza and West Bank into a single, Jewish-run apartheid ethnostate designed to prevent this reality would be a diplomatic and administrative nightmare for Israel and unlikely to last very long before devolving into either a civil war that brings us back to the status quo or a reversion to the democracy of alternative (A) under massive diplomatic pressure.

(C) Some may dream of the land becoming a single Palestinian ethnostate ("from the river to the sea") where the Jews are either expelled, murdered, or treated as second-class citizens, but this is quite plainly something Israel would never allow to happen.  The IDF would use tactical nuclear weapons to prevent this from happening.  One way or another the Jews are going to stay in Israel and maintain self-determination and voting rights.

(D) Palestinians in the past wanted a two-state solution with full right of return, but Israel is never going to grant that because it is basically just solution (A) where most or all of the Palestinians return to Israel, are given Israeli citizenship and within a few decades become the demographic majority.

(E) With the way Palestinian nationalism has played out over the last 50 years and the course Gaza in particular has taken, there is virtually no chance that Gaza and the West Bank will return to simply being incorporated into Egypt and Jordan.  They either become part of Israel or they become their own state(s).

(F) A three-state solution where the West Bank becomes a Fatah-administered Palestinian state and Gaza becomes either an internationally-administered territory, its own sovereign state, or remains technically Israeli territory, has been heavily opposed by Palestinians and has zero chance of actually happening.

I don't know of any other alternatives.  Given these options, so long as the two-state solution isn't possible, the Israelis are just going to continue the status quo.  Their settlements in the West Bank give them control over the high ground and a lattice of military control that can ensnare any Palestinian or Jordanian attack (they also control the actual west bank itself of the Jordan River).  Gaza of course has been a problem but once the annihilation of Hamas is complete, Israel is going to either hold it under martial law or delegate it to a coalition to administer, but either way the threat of violence will be gone for at least a generation.

So in terms of feasibility, from a Palestinian perspective I would think you ought to be doing all you can to reach the two-state solution, because nothing else is actually going to be remotely within consideration for Israel relative to the status quo.  Like they're not going to accept any of the alternatives versus just keeping things the way they are where they're relatively safe from both war and demographic dominance.  The only thing they might accept is a two-state solution.  It was a mistake in the 20th century for Palestine to continually reject it in favor of demanding full right of return (D), because Israel has only continued to strengthen its hand since then.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

Indy Texas the interesting thing about your link is that support was much much higher seven years ago and people simply don't think a two-state solution is possible anymore.

Declining support linked to low perceived feasibility. To understand the division of opinion about the two-state solution, it is useful to consider the findings regarding the feasibility and implementation of a two-state solution. When asked about the chances that an independent Palestinian state will be established in the next five years, among Palestinians, only 7% view the chances as high or very high that such a state will be established in the next five years; 70% of Palestinians say the chances are low or very low.

Among Israeli Jews a large majority of 88 percent believe the chances are low or very low – this is higher than 2020 and 2018 when 78 percent and 81 percent respectively thought that. Among Israeli settlers, 89 percent believe the chances of establishing a Palestinian state are low or very low. Arab respondents in general are somewhat more optimistic, but still a large majority of 68 percent view the chances as low or very low; 20 percent give “medium” chances. Among all Israelis and all sub-populations, only 3 percent give high or very high chances to the creation of a Palestinian state over the next five years.

As in the past, respondents were asked if they believe that the two-state solution is still possible, in light of recent political developments and the settlement spread. Among Israeli Jews, the findings indicate a rise in the percentage of those who believe it is no longer feasible, from 45 percent two years ago to 53% today. However, among Arab respondents, those who believe the two-state solution is still viable remains stable, 46% today compared to 45% two years ago. As a result, the Israeli total at present has become more pessimistic: 34 percent think the solution is still viable, and 49 percent believe it is not (the remainder don’t know). In September 2020, 43% thought it was viable and the same amount thought it was not.

Of course none of the alternatives to a two-state solution seem particularly feasible either:

(A) A fully-democratic single state -- essentially absorbing Gaza and West Bank into Israel and granting all Palestinians Israeli citizenship -- would have nearly an even demographic split of Arabs and Jews, and quickly devolve into an arms race of birth rate vs. birth rate for democratic control of the country -- a race the Arabs have been handily winning for the last few decades.  Regardless of whether you think the Jews have a right to an ethnostate or whether they are justified in being afraid of what life might bring under majority-Arab rule (it doesn't necessarily have to become outcome C, although that is what many Palestinian groups have openly promised), it should be plainly obvious that they are never going to willingly submit themselves to this.

(B) Incorporating Gaza and West Bank into a single, Jewish-run apartheid ethnostate designed to prevent this reality would be a diplomatic and administrative nightmare for Israel and unlikely to last very long before devolving into either a civil war that brings us back to the status quo or a reversion to the democracy of alternative (A) under massive diplomatic pressure.

(C) Some may dream of the land becoming a single Palestinian ethnostate ("from the river to the sea") where the Jews are either expelled, murdered, or treated as second-class citizens, but this is quite plainly something Israel would never allow to happen.  The IDF would use tactical nuclear weapons to prevent this from happening.  One way or another the Jews are going to stay in Israel and maintain self-determination and voting rights.

(D) Palestinians in the past wanted a two-state solution with full right of return, but Israel is never going to grant that because it is basically just solution (A) where most or all of the Palestinians return to Israel, are given Israeli citizenship and within a few decades become the demographic majority.

(E) With the way Palestinian nationalism has played out over the last 50 years and the course Gaza in particular has taken, there is virtually no chance that Gaza and the West Bank will return to simply being incorporated into Egypt and Jordan.  They either become part of Israel or they become their own state(s).

(F) A three-state solution where the West Bank becomes a Fatah-administered Palestinian state and Gaza becomes either an internationally-administered territory, its own sovereign state, or remains technically Israeli territory, has been heavily opposed by Palestinians and has zero chance of actually happening.

I don't know of any other alternatives.  Given these options, so long as the two-state solution isn't possible, the Israelis are just going to continue the status quo.  Their settlements in the West Bank give them control over the high ground and a lattice of military control that can ensnare any Palestinian or Jordanian attack (they also control the actual west bank itself of the Jordan River).  Gaza of course has been a problem but once the annihilation of Hamas is complete, Israel is going to either hold it under martial law or delegate it to a coalition to administer, but either way the threat of violence will be gone for at least a generation.

So in terms of feasibility, from a Palestinian perspective I would think you ought to be doing all you can to reach the two-state solution, because nothing else is actually going to be remotely within consideration for Israel relative to the status quo.  Like they're not going to accept any of the alternatives versus just keeping things the way they are where they're relatively safe from both war and demographic dominance.  The only thing they might accept is a two-state solution.  It was a mistake in the 20th century for Palestine to continually reject it in favor of demanding full right of return (D), because Israel has only continued to strengthen its hand since then.

51-53% is not enough support for the heavy lifting such a solution would require. You would need support so overwhelming that the opposition to it would be politically irrelevant, and that is not the case at all.

(A) Given Israel's birthrates, I don't think the notion of a demographic time bomb is very valid anymore. (It was moreso in the 20th century.)

(B) White South Africans wanted and needed Black South Africans because you can't be at the top of your racial hierarchy without people who can be below you. Israeli Jews don't want a bunch of Arabs around who they can remind they're "better" than or to perform menial domestic work. They don't want them around at all.

This was actually in a way the root cause of a lot of Arab-Jewish acrimony in the late Ottoman/British Mandate period. Most poor Palestinians lived, worked and farmed land owned by wealthy Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians and Egyptians (many of whom did not actually live there at all). When these people began selling land to various Western-funded Zionist land trusts, the Palestinians initially didn't care because they assumed all that would change was who they paid their rent to. But they soon discovered that the new owners of the land just wanted the land and wanted absolutely none of the people on it. That's when displacement and backlash started happening.

(D) The right-of-return issue is hard to solve because ultimately, if the preferred outcome is that Palestinians who have been living in Lebanon and Syria and Jordan for the past several decades are given Lebanese, Syrian or Jordanian citizenship, stay there and move on with their lives, that requires Israel reach agreements with Lebanon, Syria and Jordan regarding that. The Palestinian Authority or any other hypothetical Palestinian political entity would not have jurisdiction over that.

[mileslunn]

Indy Texas the interesting thing about your link is that support was much much higher seven years ago and people simply don't think a two-state solution is possible anymore.

Declining support linked to low perceived feasibility. To understand the division of opinion about the two-state solution, it is useful to consider the findings regarding the feasibility and implementation of a two-state solution. When asked about the chances that an independent Palestinian state will be established in the next five years, among Palestinians, only 7% view the chances as high or very high that such a state will be established in the next five years; 70% of Palestinians say the chances are low or very low.

Among Israeli Jews a large majority of 88 percent believe the chances are low or very low – this is higher than 2020 and 2018 when 78 percent and 81 percent respectively thought that. Among Israeli settlers, 89 percent believe the chances of establishing a Palestinian state are low or very low. Arab respondents in general are somewhat more optimistic, but still a large majority of 68 percent view the chances as low or very low; 20 percent give “medium” chances. Among all Israelis and all sub-populations, only 3 percent give high or very high chances to the creation of a Palestinian state over the next five years.

As in the past, respondents were asked if they believe that the two-state solution is still possible, in light of recent political developments and the settlement spread. Among Israeli Jews, the findings indicate a rise in the percentage of those who believe it is no longer feasible, from 45 percent two years ago to 53% today. However, among Arab respondents, those who believe the two-state solution is still viable remains stable, 46% today compared to 45% two years ago. As a result, the Israeli total at present has become more pessimistic: 34 percent think the solution is still viable, and 49 percent believe it is not (the remainder don’t know). In September 2020, 43% thought it was viable and the same amount thought it was not.

Of course none of the alternatives to a two-state solution seem particularly feasible either:

(A) A fully-democratic single state -- essentially absorbing Gaza and West Bank into Israel and granting all Palestinians Israeli citizenship -- would have nearly an even demographic split of Arabs and Jews, and quickly devolve into an arms race of birth rate vs. birth rate for democratic control of the country -- a race the Arabs have been handily winning for the last few decades.  Regardless of whether you think the Jews have a right to an ethnostate or whether they are justified in being afraid of what life might bring under majority-Arab rule (it doesn't necessarily have to become outcome C, although that is what many Palestinian groups have openly promised), it should be plainly obvious that they are never going to willingly submit themselves to this.

(B) Incorporating Gaza and West Bank into a single, Jewish-run apartheid ethnostate designed to prevent this reality would be a diplomatic and administrative nightmare for Israel and unlikely to last very long before devolving into either a civil war that brings us back to the status quo or a reversion to the democracy of alternative (A) under massive diplomatic pressure.

(C) Some may dream of the land becoming a single Palestinian ethnostate ("from the river to the sea") where the Jews are either expelled, murdered, or treated as second-class citizens, but this is quite plainly something Israel would never allow to happen.  The IDF would use tactical nuclear weapons to prevent this from happening.  One way or another the Jews are going to stay in Israel and maintain self-determination and voting rights.

(D) Palestinians in the past wanted a two-state solution with full right of return, but Israel is never going to grant that because it is basically just solution (A) where most or all of the Palestinians return to Israel, are given Israeli citizenship and within a few decades become the demographic majority.

(E) With the way Palestinian nationalism has played out over the last 50 years and the course Gaza in particular has taken, there is virtually no chance that Gaza and the West Bank will return to simply being incorporated into Egypt and Jordan.  They either become part of Israel or they become their own state(s).

(F) A three-state solution where the West Bank becomes a Fatah-administered Palestinian state and Gaza becomes either an internationally-administered territory, its own sovereign state, or remains technically Israeli territory, has been heavily opposed by Palestinians and has zero chance of actually happening.

I don't know of any other alternatives.  Given these options, so long as the two-state solution isn't possible, the Israelis are just going to continue the status quo.  Their settlements in the West Bank give them control over the high ground and a lattice of military control that can ensnare any Palestinian or Jordanian attack (they also control the actual west bank itself of the Jordan River).  Gaza of course has been a problem but once the annihilation of Hamas is complete, Israel is going to either hold it under martial law or delegate it to a coalition to administer, but either way the threat of violence will be gone for at least a generation.

So in terms of feasibility, from a Palestinian perspective I would think you ought to be doing all you can to reach the two-state solution, because nothing else is actually going to be remotely within consideration for Israel relative to the status quo.  Like they're not going to accept any of the alternatives versus just keeping things the way they are where they're relatively safe from both war and demographic dominance.  The only thing they might accept is a two-state solution.  It was a mistake in the 20th century for Palestine to continually reject it in favor of demanding full right of return (D), because Israel has only continued to strengthen its hand since then.

Makes a lot of sense.  On right of return I believe there are two options which if Palestinians willing to accept would be just and wouldn't put Jewish majority in jeopardy.

A.  Full monetary compensation in exchange for relinquishing right of return.  

B.  Those forced out in 1948 given right of return, but not their descendants and since that was 75 years ago vast majority forced out are dead and as time passes the remaining few will pass on.  Most wanting right of return were born outside Israel and going on descent not place of birth.  Most countries even those who allow dual citizenship usually only allow it for 1 or 2 generations.  Very few allow it endlessly.

On two state another option is annex West Bank but not Gaza Strip as while would weaken Jewish numbers still would have a majority and birth rate in West Bank is not as high as Gaza Strip.  Also if they can convince many Jews living outside Israel to make Aliyah that helps in advantage of numbers.  Although while over half of Jews live outside Israel, over 80% globally live in either Israel or United States and in case of American Jews not sure huge desire

Another would be keep status quo but build bridges and tunnels to connect Palestinian communities so they can travel freely between all areas A & B without going through checkpoints.  I believe Trump suggested this as an option.  

Doubt Israel would agree to this, but an EU style agreement with free mobility of labour and open borders but citizenship based on ethnicity not place of residence so could only vote in country of citizenship might be one, but only feasible if can go years without any attacks.  This would mean Israelis and Palestinians could freely live in either country and no need for border checks, but would only be able to vote in country of origin not residence so no risk politically of Jews not remaining in full control.

None of these seem likely but they are some other possibilities.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

The reports that Egypt and Jordan are secretly encouraging Israel to continue the campaign is legit black pilling like nobody in any form of power gives a sh*t for regular Palestinians and it’s heartbreaking

I mean, it's pretty much common knowledge to anyone that the Arab governments have sold their souls and spines out regarding the cause of the Palestinian plight in exchange for continued Western support in propping up their regimes.

[Meclazine for Israel]

For GMac's post (not quoting it to save space), my guess is (F), particularly the part about Gaza.

Good effort post. Wait and see what happens on the West Bank.

Video footage has emerged of the moment Mia Schem was reunited with her mother.

Mia Schem

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0R4ZyVpKeB/

[Meclazine for Israel]

Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie has made the Israeli Community News IG page. Great effort.

They had to add subtitles so everyone could understand Tasmanian. But in all seriousness, the Australia Senate record has a banal, yet accurate depiction of events on October 7.

Just barbaric murder and rape.

Senator Jacqui Lambie

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0T0eFTuEuj/

Not my favourite politician, but she did not say anything that wasn't true. ABC Australia should pay attention instead of sympathising with their cause.

[jaichind]

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-s-sends-israel-2-000-pound-bunker-buster-bombs-for-gaza-war-82898638

"U.S. Sends Israel 2,000-Pound Bunker Buster Bombs for Gaza War"

[Red Velvet]

https://twitter.com/TarcisoRenova/status/1730938137482756128

[Horus]

Lula remains the best leader of a major country, and it's not particularly close.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Oh so a far right despot waging a war of aggression that indiscriminately targets civilians is bad now? Good to see you found your moral outrage when it doesn’t involve a country you have ties with Lula 😑

[Comrade Funk]

I don't care what Israelis think or want vis-à-vis 2SS. They'd be a pariah without us. A real president would use the bully pulpit and force them to accept it.

[Horus]

Oh so a far right despot waging a war of aggression that indiscriminately targets civilians is bad now? Good to see you found your moral outrage when it doesn’t involve a country you have ties with Lula 😑

Lula's Ukraine neutrality would be his one blind spot, but domestically he's basically perfect. Exactly what I'd want in a leader.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Oh so a far right despot waging a war of aggression that indiscriminately targets civilians is bad now? Good to see you found your moral outrage when it doesn’t involve a country you have ties with Lula 😑

Lula's Ukraine neutrality would be his one blind spot, but domestically he's basically perfect. Exactly what I'd want in a leader.

Tbf most would look perfect domestically when compared to the fascist douchebag that came before him